Answer:
Great Britain and Japan are both island nations with limited resources. As a result, each nation developed according to its distinctive geographic location and limitations.
Both lands rose to become the two great pioneers of the modern world, but the biggest difference between them is that Great Britain had no role model to base its development on. It was the first industrial nation, it was at the forefront of the Industrial Revolution.
Both were isolated islands nearby the continent with limited raw materials to start the whole industrialization process. Britain had coal, iron and wool, but Japan had to import all these from another country.
Britain never has had a civil war nor domestic chaos, it was a stable nation and industrialization came in a more natural way. People in Great Britain started inventing steam engines, water frames and spinning jenny that helped the process to get started. They were motivated to move forward from hand production and agriculture and wanted machines and industrial companies.
On the other hand, by the mid-19th century, Japan was still a feudal nation under the authority of a warlord. The Meiji Restoration, in 1868, was named after the emperor who decided it was time to remodel Japan on a Western model and import new technologies. The goal was to make Japan a European-style empire that could compete in the increasingly global world. Japan had basically another way of thinking and the nation was pushed over the industrialization by foreign pressure.
The result was an industrial revolution that lasted from roughly 1890 to 1930. Factories were built, infrastructure was developed, and the Japanese economy quickly transitioned.
Answer:
Best type of government: Hamilton was a strong supporter of a powerful central or federal government. His belief was that a governmental power should be concentrated in the hands of those few men who had the talent and intelligence to govern properly for the good of all the people.
Explanation:
Nationality: United States
Works written: The Federalist Papers
At the end of the 19th century, about a third of Americans worked in agriculture, compared to only about four percent today. After the Civil War, drought, plagues of grasshoppers, boll weevils, rising costs, falling prices, and high interest rates made it increasingly difficult to make a living as a farmer. In the South, one third of all landholdings were operated by tenants. Approximately 75 percent of African American farmers and 25 percent of white farmers tilled land owned by someone else.
Every year, the prices farmers received for their crops seemed to fall. Corn fell from 41 cents a bushel in 1874 to 30 cents by 1897. Farmers made less money planting 24 million acres of cotton in 1894 than they did planting 9 million acres in 1873. Facing high interests rates of upwards of 10 percent a year, many farmers found it impossible to pay off their debts. Farmers who could afford to mechanize their operations and purchase additional land could successfully compete, but smaller, more poorly financed farmers, working on small plots marginal land, struggled to survive.
Many farmers blamed railroad owners, grain elevator operators, land monopolists, commodity futures dealers, mortgage companies, merchants, bankers, and manufacturers of farm equipment for their plight. Many attributed their problems to discriminatory railroad rates, monopoly prices charged for farm machinery and fertilizer, an oppressively high tariff, an unfair tax structure, an inflexible banking system, political corruption, corporations that bought up huge tracks of land. They considered themselves to be subservient to the industrial Northeast, where three-quarters of the nation's industry was located. They criticized a deflationary monetary policy based on the gold standard that benefited bankers and other creditors.
All of these problems were compounded by the fact that increasing productivity in agriculture led to price declines. In the 1870s, 190 million new acres were put under cultivation. By 1880, settlement was moving into the semi-arid plains. At the same time, transportation improvements meant that American farmers faced competitors from Egypt to Australia in the struggle for markets.
The first major rural protest was the Patrons of Husbandry, which was founded in 1867 and had 1.5 million members by 1875. Known as the Granger Movement, these embattled farmers formed buying and selling cooperatives and demanded state regulation of railroad rates and grain elevator fees.
Early in the 1870s the Greenback Party agitated for the issue of paper money, not backed by gold or silver, with the idea that a depreciating currency would make it easier for debtors to meet their obligations.
Another wave of protest grew out of the National Farmers' Alliance and Industrial Union (the Southern Farmers Alliance) formed in Lampedusa County, Texas in 1875, and the Northwestern Farmers' Alliance, founded in Chicago in 1880. By the late 1880s, the cooperative business enterprises set up by the Farmers' Alliances had begun to fail due to inadequate capitalization and mismanagement. By 1890, the Farmers Alliances had begun to enter politics. In 1892 the Alliance formed the Peoples' or Populist Party. Among other things, the Populists financed commodity credit system that would have allowed farmers to store their crop in a federal warehouse to await favorable market prices and meanwhile borrow up to 80 percent of the current market price.
The Supreme Court upheld the policy of interning Japanese American citizens during World War II.
After the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, the US officially declared war on Japan. Shortly after this, the federal government was suspicious of Japanese American citizens and feared that many of them were spies for Japan. This is why president Franklin D. Roosevelt passed executive order 9066. This law resulted in the placing of Japanese American citizens into internment camps.
Korematsu was one of those citizens placed into an internment camp. He lated sued the federal government saying that this was a violation of his constitutional rights. However, the Supreme Court sided with the government as they felt that wartime actions can justify actions like the one taken by president Franklin D. Roosevelt.
